Comparing shopper characteristics by online grocery ordering use among households in low-income communities in Maine.

OBJECTIVE: Online grocery shopping could improve access to healthy food, but it may not be equally accessible to all populations - especially those at higher risk for food insecurity. The current study aimed to compare the socio-demographic characteristics of families who ordered groceries online v. those who only shopped in-store. DESIGN: We analysed enrollment survey and 44 weeks of individually linked grocery transaction data. We used univariate χ2 and t-tests and logistic regression to assess differences in socio-demographic characteristics between households that only shopped in-store and those that shopped online with curbside pickup (online only or online and in-store). SETTING: Two Maine supermarkets. PARTICIPANTS: 863 parents or caregivers of children under 18 years old enrolled in two fruit and vegetable incentive trials. RESULTS: Participants had a total of 32 757 transactions. In univariate assessments, online shoppers had higher incomes (P < 0 0001), were less likely to participate in Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP; P < 0 0001) and were more likely to be female (P = 0·04). Most online shoppers were 30-39 years old, and few were 50 years or older (P = 0·003). After controlling for age, gender, race/ethnicity, number of children, number of adults, income and SNAP participation, female primary shoppers (OR = 2·75, P = 0·003), number of children (OR = 1·27, P = 0·04) and income (OR = 3·91 for 186-300 % federal poverty line (FPL) and OR = 6·92 for >300 % FPL, P < 0·0001) were significantly associated with likelihood of shopping online. CONCLUSIONS: In the current study of Maine families, low-income shoppers were significantly less likely to utilise online grocery ordering with curbside pickup. Future studies could focus on elucidating barriers and developing strategies to improve access.

Comparing Online and In-Store Grocery Purchases.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the grocery shopping patterns of people who shopped both online and in-store and evaluate whether shoppers purchased fewer unhealthy, impulse-sensitive items online. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of 44 weeks of grocery transaction data collected for fruit and vegetable incentive trials in 2 Maine supermarkets. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 137 primary household shoppers who shopped at least once in-store and online (curbside pickup) for 5,573 total transactions MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND ANALYSIS: Paired t tests and descriptive analyses compared online and in-store transactions with respect to frequency, total spending, number of items purchased, and spending on 10 food groups and 34 subgroups. Mixed-effects regression models estimated differences in online vs in-store spending on 5 unhealthy, impulse-sensitive subgroups. RESULTS: When shopping online, participants spent 44% more per transaction ($113.58 vs $78.88, P < 0.001) and purchased more items (38.3 vs 26.6 items/transaction, P < 0.001). Compared with in-store, shopping online was associated with reduced spending per transaction on candy (-$0.65, P < 0.001), cold or frozen desserts (-$0.52, P < 0.001), and grain-based desserts (-$1.29, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Online shopping was associated with lower spending on certain unhealthy, impulse-sensitive foods. Grocery-based healthy eating initiatives might leverage online ordering platforms to increase their reach and effectiveness.

Supermarket Purchases Over the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Benefit Month: A Comparison Between Participants and Nonparticipants.

INTRODUCTION: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program provides financial assistance for food and beverage purchases to approximately 1 in 7 Americans, with benefits distributed once monthly. Most Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits are spent early in the month, leading to decreased caloric intake later in the month. The effects of this early benefit depletion on the types of foods and beverages purchased over the course of the month is unclear. METHODS: Using individually tracked sales data from 950 participants enrolled in 2 supermarket-based RCTs in Maine (October 2015-April 2016 and October 2016-June 2017), purchases of selected food categories by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participants (n=248) versus nonparticipants (n=702) in the first 2 weeks compared with the last 2 weeks of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefit month were examined. Analyses were completed in 2019. RESULTS: For Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participants, adjusted mean food spending decreased 37% from the first 2 weeks to the last 2 weeks of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefit month (p<0.0001) compared with a 3% decrease (p=0.02) for nonparticipants. The decline in spending by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participants occurred in all examined categories: vegetables (-25%), fruits (-27%), sugar-sweetened beverages (-30%), red meat (-37%), convenience foods (-40%), and poultry (-48%). Difference-in-difference estimators comparing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participants with nonparticipants were statistically significant (p<0.05) for all examined categories. CONCLUSIONS: In the second half of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefit month, individuals reduced purchases of all examined categories. More research is needed to understand the impact of these fluctuations in spending patterns on the dietary quality of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participants.

Financial Incentives Increase Purchases Of Fruit And Vegetables Among Lower-Income Households With Children.

The high cost of fruit and vegetables can be a barrier to healthy eating, particularly among lower-income households with children. We examined the effects of a financial incentive on purchases at a single supermarket by primary shoppers from low-income households who had at least one child. Participation in an in-store Cooking Matters event was requested for incentivized subjects but optional for their nonincentivized controls. The sample included but was not limited to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participants. Compared to the controls, incentivized shoppers-who were given an immediate 50 percent discount on qualifying fruit and vegetables-increased weekly spending on those items by 27 percent; this change was for fresh produce. There was no change in purchases of frozen and canned produce or unhealthful foods. Estimated annual average daily consumption of fruit and vegetables by the incentivized shoppers and by one designated child per incentivized household did not change. Attendance at Cooking Matters events was low. These findings support financial incentive programs to increase fruit and vegetable purchasing but suggest that effective complementary approaches are needed to improve diet quality.

Make It Fresh, for Less! A Supermarket Meal Bundling and Electronic Reminder Intervention to Promote Healthy Purchases Among Families With Children.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of a supermarket meal bundling and electronic reminder intervention on food choices of families with children. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental (meal bundling) and randomized, controlled trial (electronic reminders). SETTING: Large supermarket in Maine during 40-week baseline and 16-week intervention periods in 2015-2016. PARTICIPANTS: English-speaking adults living with at least 1 child aged ≤18 years (n = 300) with 25% of households participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. INTERVENTION(S): (1) Four bundles of ingredients needed to make 8 low-cost healthful meals were promoted in the store through displays and point-of-purchase messaging for 4 weeks each; (2) weekly electronic messages based on principles from behavioral psychology were sent to study participants reminding them to look for meal bundles in the store. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Difference in storewide sales and individual purchases of bundled items (measured using supermarket loyalty card data) from baseline to intervention in intervention vs control groups. ANALYSIS: Regressions controlling for total food spending and accounting for repeated measures. RESULTS: There were no differences in spending on bundled items resulting from the meal bundling intervention or the electronic reminders. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Overall, there was little impact of healthful meal bundles and electronic reminders on storewide sales or purchases of promoted items in a large supermarket.

A Supermarket Double-Dollar Incentive Program Increases Purchases of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Among Low-Income Families With Children: The Healthy Double Study.

OBJECTIVE: To carry out a pilot study to determine whether a supermarket double-dollar fruit and vegetable (F&V) incentive increases F&V purchases among low-income families. DESIGN: Randomized controlled design. Purchases were tracked using a loyalty card that provided participants with a 5% discount on all purchases during a 3-month baseline period followed by the 4-month intervention. SETTING: A supermarket in a low-income rural Maine community. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 401 low-income and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) supermarket customers. INTERVENTION: Same-day coupon at checkout for half-off eligible fresh, frozen, or canned F&V over 4 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Weekly spending in dollars on eligible F&V. ANALYSIS: A linear model with random intercepts accounted for repeated transactions by individuals to estimate change in F&V spending per week from baseline to intervention. Secondary analyses examined changes among SNAP-eligible participants. RESULTS: Coupons were redeemed among 53% of eligible baskets. Total weekly F&V spending increased in the intervention arm compared with control ($1.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], $0.29 to $3.88). The largest increase was for fresh F&V ($1.97; 95% CI, $0.49 to $3.44). Secondary analyses revealed greater increases in F&V spending among SNAP-eligible participants who redeemed coupons ($5.14; 95% CI, $1.93 to $8.34) than among non-SNAP eligible participants who redeemed coupons ($3.88; 95% CI, $1.67 to $6.08). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: A double-dollar pricing incentive increased F&V spending in a low-income community despite the moderate uptake of the coupon redemption. Customers who were eligible for SNAP saw the greatest F&V spending increases. Financial incentives for F&V are an effective strategy for food assistance programs to increase healthy purchases and improve dietary intake in low-income families.

Transactions at a Northeastern Supermarket Chain: Differences by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Use.

INTRODUCTION: Although one in seven Americans receives Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, little is known about how these benefits for food are spent because individual-level sales data are not publicly available. The purpose of this study is to compare transactions made with and without SNAP benefits at a large regional supermarket chain. METHODS: Sales data were obtained from a large supermarket chain in the Northeastern U.S. for a period of 2 years (April 2012-April 2014). Multivariate multiple regression models were used to quantify relative differences in dollars spent on 31 predefined SNAP-eligible food categories. Analyses were completed in 2016. RESULTS: Transactions with SNAP benefit use included higher spending on less healthful food categories, including sugar-sweetened beverages ($1.08), red meat ($1.55), and convenience foods ($1.34), and lower spending on more healthful food categories, such as fruits (-$1.51), vegetables (-$1.35), and poultry (-$1.25) compared to transactions without SNAP benefit use. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide objective data to compare purchases made with and without SNAP benefits. Next steps should be to test proposed SNAP modifications to determine whether they would have the intended effect of promoting healthier purchasing patterns among SNAP beneficiaries.